I read a lot of posters calling the first game and the sequel as "average" and I think that's fair.  But to call it garbage is a disservice to the game, the players and people that put a lot of effort into the game.

Garbage would be E.T., Big Rigs and Superman 64.  Hyperbole is one thing...

If it wasn't worth the investment, they wouldn't have made it at all. And if they were contractually obligated to release it, Sega should have at least sunk more money into promotions, rather than sending it out to die. Certainly the game's capacity for sales isn't great, but greater than the "did this game even release?" levels we're seeing, the blame for which is entirely on Sega's apathy.

I agree with Viper1, I did the review for the first one in my website and this one is better in almost every aspect (voices also a problem for me), I am writing the review for this new one and I think it will get the same or almost the same score than the previous one, if it is any lower it will not be by much. The bar is higher than the previous time and the voices are not good, but everything else is improved, that's why I don't understand how a improved game can change from a 7 or 8 to a 4 or 5.

Exactly.

Conduit 2 is a good game.  Great?  No.  But some reviewers really seem to be taking the hype and using that as a validation for scoring it below what it truly deserves.  Others are going even further by simply "sticking it to Wii owners".  A means of ego boosting by way of using your vocal platform to belittle another group by exaggerating flaws beyond their impact and contrasting against factors that don't diminish the quality of the game whatsoever.

You guys say reviewers are just trying to stick it to the game, but it really isn't doing that much worse than the first game when things are all averaged out.  69 meta for the first, 66 for the second.  Viper has mentioned that his site will probably score it lower because of different reviewers between the two games (something I'm sure happens in a lot of sites) and Flagstaad mentioned that even though he finds the game better in almost every way he could still see giving it a lower score.  So it sounds like both of your opinions of the game fit perfectly within the difference in the meta score.  

I agree that going from a 7-8 for the first game and down to a 4-5 for the second is silly, but I haven't seen any instance of that.  Some sites are going markedly lower but that's probably differences in the review writer again and the new writer feels the first game was overrated by his/her site.

I'm just really not seeing the horrible injustice being brought on this game as far as reviewers go, a mediocre game is being ratted mediocre.  Fans will bitch and moan because they think it should get a much higher score but they always do.

Torillian, I said, "though our reviewer did score it higher than I did for the first game."

I also think the issue is while the game itself is average, that doesn't mean it sucks or is garbage as is claimed by many reviewers and even a few members.  Just take a look at Joystiq's review for an extreme example.

Joystiq's review seems overly harsh, but they didn't review the first game so you can't use that as a difference between how the first and second games are being treated by reviewers.  By the sound of it the guy probably would have hated the first Conduit as well, just the wrong choice for the review.

Joystiq's review is a bad example altogether because they brought in someone with clearly next to no perspective on reviewing games period (he was credited as an "actor" and "WoW enthusiast,"), and the entire review justs seemed to be a vehicle for them to shill his book and score some hits reviewing a game they figured no-one cared about anyway

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/30/review-the-conduit/

They did review it.  3/5 stars.  Different reviwer though.

got me there, weird that that doesn't show up on meta, since they didn't have a review for conduit counted on meta I assumed they didn't do one.